Should I get excessive noise at 800iso?

[jojo77]

Took a pic with DRebel at 800 iso and lightened it up in PS

Printed and the darker areas of the pic look like crap from noise. Is this common?

[RichardtheSane]

If the image was underexposed and then lightened then you will get more noise than a well exposed ISO 800 image.... so it could be normal.

[drisley]

Hehe, you knew I would reply to this.
I agree 100% with Richard.

It's best to slightly overexpose higher ISO images to reduce noise.
This is called "shooting to the right" because when you look at the histogram, most of the image data should be near the right edge. I always do this and I frequently shoot ISO1600. The images almost never require any noise reduction.

This (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso1600crop2.jpg)is a 100% crop of an ISO800 picture I took with the 300D. No noise reduction at all.

This (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso800crop.jpg) is another ISO800 picture at full crop. Again no noise reduction used.
Just shot "to the right" in RAW.

[piku]

geez great pics... if i may ask, whats your workflow/settings/lens on those shots? pls say the nifty fifty please ^^

[drisley]

Thanks for the compliment!
I used the "No Jive 85" :D
That's the 85F1.8 USM lens.
Although, I have similar shots with the nifty fifty that look the same, but further back of course.

I get a reading using AV mode.
Then I switch to M and lock in my settings, usually compensating exposure by +2/3 to reduce any noise. I try to get an aperture of around F2.5 to F2.8 as this seems to be where the 85F1.8 and 50F1.8 really start to get sharp (and still provide a nice shallow DOF).
I shoot RAW, and convert with C1 Pro. I actually LOWER the C1 Pro default noise suppression by 1 notch since it obviously isn't needed.
I increase saturation by about +5%, and use Soft Look sharpening of 80/3.
The key is to slighty overexpose, and for me C1 Pro always produces much less noise than Breezebrowser, Zoombrowser, and Photoshop CS.

There are more ISO800 and ISO1600 shots with the 85F1.8 here (http://www.fotop.net/sharpnsmart/mabba062004).
Also, I have ISO400 and ISO800 shots taken with the 50F1.8 here (http://www.fotop.net/sharpnsmart/mabba032004).

[piku]

I get a reading using AV mode.

so you shoot a test on AV mode and try to get a balanced graph? can you please explain ^^ i'ma noob at these kind of things hehe but willing to have the patience to learn from the seasoned pros

[drisley]

Actually, if you have a high contrast situation, like with these bodybuidling shows where the subject is brightly lit, and the background is dark, another great method is to use partial metering to get a read on the person's skin.
Just press the * button while the AF point is over the subjects face, or chest. Then use that reading in M mode with a slight exposure compensation.

Getting a reading in AV mode using Evaluative Metering with the subject under the AF point is good to use in a lower contrast situation, like maybe a stage play with a colourful background.

Of course if you have a 10D, or a camera where you can selectively chose Metering Modes, you dont have to switch to and from M, AV, etc to change the metering type.

[AzzKicker]

This (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso1600crop2.jpg)is a 100% crop of an ISO800 picture I took with the 300D. No noise reduction at all.

This (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso800crop.jpg) is another ISO800 picture at full crop. Again no noise reduction used.
Just shot "to the right" in RAW.


WOW, you could have warned me that I was about to view almost naked men. I had like 3 cute girls at work give me funny looks.

[piku]

This (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso1600crop2.jpg)is a 100% crop of an ISO800 picture I took with the 300D. No noise reduction at all.

This (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso800crop.jpg) is another ISO800 picture at full crop. Again no noise reduction used.
Just shot "to the right" in RAW.


WOW, you could have warned me that I was about to view almost naked men. I had like 3 cute girls at work give me funny looks.

should have said

that was me back in the days

=p

[abel]

Dris those pics are awesome but that guys dangling nipples kinda freak me out....


hehee

[drisley]

:lol: :lol:

[drisley]

:lol: :lol:
Haha that's too funny!
Actually I was waiting for someone to comment on the subject.
:lol:
I would have posted a picture of one of the girls, but while the other shots were sharp, none came close to the detail found in this one.
I'm not sure why. Perhaps it was just a lucky combination of lighting and contrast. I'm not sure.
And yes, I hope the nipples didnt scratch your monitor! :wink:

Azzkicker, I almost fell out of my chair when I read your post! :P
If you're single, I suggest it may be time to find a new job, or move to another town! :lol:

[who10]

Took a pic with DRebel at 800 iso and lightened it up in PS

Printed and the darker areas of the pic look like crap from noise. Is this common?

I posted a workflow example in the "processing/printing" forum, but it seems relevant to your initial question. I shoot a lot of indoor events where flash is not permitted (or practical). The image in this link shows the typical kind of noise I get with ISO 800 on a 10D when the exposure is a bit off and/or color cast present - this example shows all PSCS (except Neat image to clear out the noise). The end of the example is a 100% crop to better show the noise...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38481

David

[who10]

Here a a second link with a quick compare running my "test pattern" approach to noise reduction with side by side conversions using C1 and PSCS raw conversions:

http://www.haskellct.com/photos/C1PSCSCMP.jpg

My personal preference is the the C1 result, but both converters work well with Neat Image...

[piku]

great info... any good pointers to PSCS alone, and/or free plugins/actions???

[dn7elson]

Here a a second link with a quick compare running my "test pattern" approach to noise reduction with side by side conversions using C1 and PSCS raw conversions:

I always find myself reducing the strength of NI from 100% to 80-85% and increasing the noise allowed to 15-20%. This still takes out most of the noise, but gets rid of the plastic or clay skin that the full strength setting usually gives.

[Olegis]

I don't get almost any noise at ISO800 on properly exposed photographs. here is one sample : http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38513

[jojo77]

how much is neat image?

[dn7elson]

how much is neat image?

It's a bit pricey, but works well when you're stuck with a bad image.

http://www.neatimage.com/purchase.html

The Pro+ version is the one that comes with the PhotoshopCS plugin.

[who10]

I always find myself reducing the strength of NI from 100% to 80-85% and increasing the noise allowed to 15-20%. This still takes out most of the noise, but gets rid of the plastic or clay skin that the full strength setting usually gives.

This is one of the points of my post - using the test pattern with NI defaults(shot for a particular ISO/aperature) have, for me, eliminated the issues I initially had with "plastic", over corrected reductions - the test pattern method removes only the camera's noise finger print which NI seems to recognize readily if the "analysis with test pattern" is selected.

I also agree with the comment that a properly exposed 10D ISO800 image taken in adequate light often requires little if any Noise Reduction - interiors under incadencent, flourescent or late evening shots in heavey shadow where conditions are sub-optimal typically induce artifacts into my images that NeatImage happens to do a great job of processing out. I should note that all of my experience is with 16bit processing end to end.

[drisley]

I've used both Neat Image and Noise Ninja.
Neat Image is VERY good, however Noise Ninja is slightly better IMHO.
Ninja is slightly faster, and more importantly, seems to do a slightly better job at noise reduction. Ninja is the only software I've come across that doesnt produce a "crosshatch" pattern on very noisy images.

This site (http://www.michaelalmond.com/Articles/noise.htm) did a very extensive comparison of all the major NR programs, and came up with the same conclusions I mentioned above. Noise Ninja was the winner.

Funny thing though. I bought Ninja right around the time I discovered that I should slightly overexpose high ISO images. I have yet to need to use Ninja since I bought it! Because I shoot in dark venues, I use ISO800 and ISO1600 almost exclusivley, and even at full-size, noise is very, very slight. When printed, the noise is not visible at all. When resized for web, even the noisiest images usually appear clean.
In fact, some sharpening software actually adds noise to the final product because this gives a sharper looking picture when printed.